GROSS INJUSTICE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3360, 28 October 1911, Page 3

GROSS INJUSTICE.

NATIVE' LEASEHOLDS

iFrom our Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON, Oct. 2(3.

When the Native Land Claims Adjustment Bill was called on to-night, the Hon. A. T. Ngata produced a revised version of his clause to prevent aggregation of native leaseholds. There was no change in sub-clause 1, which provided that the terms “lessee” “sublessee” in part XII of the Native Land Act, 1909, include, and at all times theretofore have included, a lessee by assignment and a sub-lessee by assignment. ” Sub-clause 2 in its new form was as follows: “Nothing impart XII of the Native Land Act, 1909, shall prevent, or be deemed to have prevented, the assignment or subleasing of a leasehold estate in native land (whereas the area thereof and whether created before the commence.,lent of that Act), to any person who does not already at the time when he so acquires an interest in that land sold any other land (whether Native,' European, or Crown land), exceeding five thousand acres, calculated in accordance with that part of the said act ae the beneficial owner, lessee, or sub-lessee, thereof, whether at law or in equity, and whether solely or jointly, or in common with any other person.” This differed from the original proposal chiefly by the substitution of 5,000 acres of 100 acres. Sub-clause 3of the first version forbidding the registration of instruments for the acquisition of interests in native freehold land, in the absence of a statutory declaration of compliance with the limitation provisions of the Act of 1909, did not appear in the new form of the clause. Mr. Ngata said that although the clause in tliis form was still retrospective, he thought it would be found less objectionable than before. Mr. Herries said 1 this was no better than the original proposal. It was a retrospective and retroactive clause of such a kind that it ought to be thrown out by any self respecting legislature. The Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and every Judge in the land, except the Chief Justice, had in effect, decided against the clause. The proposal of the clause would take away rights which had been enjoyed by the lessees for many years, it would penalise people who had' entered, into arrangements which were at the time legal and proper. It was not right in order to cary out a public policy to commit a-gross injustice on people who had entered into perfectly lawful transactions, which in some cases, as for instance in bankruptcies, had been ordered out of the courts. _ Aggregation had not been prevented in the past, and it was unfair to now penalise people who had Liken advantage of the law in their day. There were other ways of preventing aggregation than by striking a blow at the whole tenure of Land 1 in this Dominion He was quite sure that when the effect of this clause became generally known, the Hon. Gentleman would receive telegrams from all parts of the country saying that it should be repealed. No provision at all had been made for mortgages. Mr. Herries urged that the clause should be withdrawn. Aggregation had not gone so far as Hon. members seemed to think. The Government might very well lie content to let. the present law stand. The provisions against aggregation would then apply to all future leaseholds.

Mr. Massey said! he had always supported the principle of limitation, but this clause was a very improper attempt, to get round the decision of the committee of the Court of Appeal. The Law that prohibited aggregation in European owned land could be applied to native leaseholds. He did not think aggregation of these leases was going on. Nothing caused so much uneasiness in tl}e minds of Europeans as any interference with lands.

Mr. Wilford (Hutt), said that transactions already completed within the law should not be interefered with, but he thought the clause might be applied to leases already in existence, but not yet dealt with, by way of assignment. Mr. A. L. Herdman (Wellington) North) said that people had acquired lawful rights in accordance with the Act of 1909. and those rights should be protected It was fundamental principal that legislation should be just, and therefore this clause should be rejected by the House. It would be interfering with the securities of any persons or instructions, which might have advanced money on the leases. Sir J. Carroll said reasonable amendments could be considered in committee. The motion to recommit -the Bill in order to add the clause was carried by 33 to 24. The Prime Minister said it never had been intended under the law that a holder of native lands should be allowed to go on aggregating by means of assignments. Such a state of affairs would not have been tolerated for an hour, had it been known to exist. If the proposal of the lion, member for Tauranga were given effect to it would mean that one holder might before next session aggregate as much as half a million acres of native leasehold land. Unless the legislation suggested were carried, irreparable harm would lie done before next session. If the clause were passed and some injustice were done to any individual, that could be remedied next session. The Legislature had in- * tended to effect it in 1909. It had certainly not been contemplated that a man should be enabled to have assigned to him the whole 3} million acres of native leasehold lands. The Native Minister had not known until recently that some registrars had been recognising these assignments, whenever they were brought before them. The matter came to light only when a case was “stuck up” by the Registrar at Gislborne.